Judicial Determination Of Courier’s Illegal Possession Of Express Property

With the continuous development of China’s market economy,the express industry has also ushered in the spring of development.At the same time,the number of property crimes in the express field is also increasing.In judicial practice,it is controversial whether the illegal possession of express property by express company employees should be regarded as duty embezzlement or theft.Based on the above reasons,this paper takes the case of courier Qin’s illegal possession of express property as an example,and tries to analyze the focus of controversy in this case:should the behavior of courier Qin constitute duty embezzlement or theft.Around the focus of the dispute,we use a variety of research methods to analyze the case as follows: first,we analyze whether the defendant’s behavior constitutes the crime of occupation.The courier Qin meets the special subject conditions,and the express property is actually controlled or managed by Shunfeng express company,which belongs to the unit property.At the same time,he takes advantage of his position to control and dominate the property because he undertakes affairs,and illegally occupies the property by taking advantage of his dominant position.Qin does not have a dominant position in controlling the express property,and the act of taking the express home in the process of sorting does not belong to taking advantage of his position,so Qin’s act does not constitute the crime of occupation;Secondly,it analyzes whether the defendant’s behavior constitutes theft.Express property is a sealed property.Therefore,through the analysis of the possession and ownership of the sealed property and the content,according to the theory of differential possession,the sealed property is controlled by the trustee as a whole,and the ownership of the content still belongs to the client.Therefore,the behavior of illegal possession of the whole sealed object should constitute the crime of occupation,while the behavior of illegal possession of the content should constitute the crime of theft.The behavior of the people involved in the case should be defined as the occupation of the whole express and the theft of the content.In conclusion,the illegal possession of mobile phones in express packages should be considered as theft.On the basis of case evaluation and based on the judicial status,the problem of possession of sealed object should be clarified in order to solve the problem of class cases.For the boundary between the crime of occupation of duty and the crime of theft,the specific meaning of the duty in the crime of occupation of duty should be clarified,and the crime of occupation of duty should be clear that the crime of occupation only includes the act of embezzlement in order to solve the difficult problems in the determination.Finally,we should balance the standard of the amount of conviction and sentencing of the crime of occupation of duty and theft,and better crack down on the crime.